Kerry J O'Brien

The Gillard government is losing the climate debate because it is failing to argue the moral case.

Given its recent history, the government is understandably reluctant to press the moral case for action, choosing instead to meet Tony Abbott's scare campaign with a direct focus on the economics. While the economic case for action is strong, failing to couple this with a clear moral justification for addressing climate change is undermining support for the carbon tax.

For one thing, the economic justification for taking action, particularly through a market-based mechanism, is pitched at the macro-economic level. Meanwhile, the opposition hammers away at the micro level of electricity bills and grocery prices.

An exclusive focus on the economics also gives legitimacy to the notion that any policy response should be judged purely in terms of economic costs and benefits. With Australia's contribution to global carbon emissions being so small, opponents can claim that any action we take will have no real benefit, and thus any cost is too great.

Advertisement

The government is at pains to assure low and middle income earners that they will be fully compensated for the costs of the carbon tax. Yet, the public understand that the carbon tax is designed to make carbon more expensive. They are therefore suspicious of assurances of a tax is meant to reconfigure the entire economy but will cost them nothing.

In other words, arguing for a carbon tax solely on economic grounds is fraught and highly susceptible to the kind of scare campaign we've seen from the opposition.

What is missing from the government's pitch is an explanation of what is really at stake and why the current generation must act now, rather than leave it for our children's generation. In short, it's lacking a moral dimension.

Psychologists have shown that attitudes held as moral convictions are different from equally strong non-moral attitudes. Crucially, moral attitudes entail a strong motivation to act regardless of competing priorities.

Adding a moral frame to the debate taps into values of community and the sense that we share a common fate. It is these values that will motivate people to act, and which are overlooked or even undermined by an emphasis on the economic dimension.

Contrast the current debate over the carbon tax with the way the body politic responded to the terror attacks of September 11. A common refrain at the time was that terrorism posed an existential threat to Western civilisation, the corollary being that such a threat must be countered at any cost. Can you imagine any political leader opposing the initial invasion of Afghanistan on the grounds it would lead to tax rises or place upward pressure on interest rates?

Anyone making such claims would have been pilloried because the moral imperative to combat terrorism made economic concerns seem trivial and short-sighted.

Of course climate change is a much less immediate, if no less existential, threat than terrorism. Images of melting glaciers are much less arresting than those of collapsing buildings and bloodied bodies. But that should not blind us to the scale of the threat climate change poses.

The Greens' continued emphasis on the moral case is a welcome exception, though they are largely preaching to the converted. For those yet to make up their mind on the issue, it's the government's rhetoric that will really count.

This is not to say that the government should flick the switch to sanctimony. The public will be rightly hostile towards politicians who lecture them about morality and trivialise their financial concerns. It may be a fine line but the government needs to explain the moral case for action without appearing self-righteous.

Nor does this mean the government should downplay the economic case. Indeed, the moral and economic arguments can complement each other. If the carbon tax is judged purely in economic terms any cost-of-living impact becomes a source of grievance. But if the moral dimension figures in people's thinking, that same impost could be viewed as a worthy contribution to the common good.

The moral dimension also lends weight to the notion that what Australia does actually matters. After all, we're constantly told that our country punches above its weight in global affairs. So even if we can't inspire other countries through our own actions, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be used as political cover for foreign governments looking to justify their own inaction.

Australians don't want to be the canaries down the mineshaft when it comes to taking action. Nor will they accept the role of the global free-rider, benefiting from the sacrifice of others. Australians want to at least be part of the solution rather than part of the problem when it comes to matters of great moral import.

Kerry J O'Brien is studying for a PhD in political psychology at the Australian National University.

173 comments

The dissembling of direct action plans should be complete by now with the humiliation of yet another elected representative obliged to unpick these things.

A whole two weeks in the fray and Big Barry in NSW collapses in alarm as always occurs. Picking winners is bad policy with all of these schemes. So Big Barry courageously demands that someone else take the heat on his behalf. He cannot do it, but Comet and Gillard should hasten the unwind of Federal schemes, and also not price carbon with a tax, he supports direct action schemes of Abbott and Hunt. Sheer magnificence in thought process.

This is the same who made the calculated decision to backdown in the eleventh hour his support for the sale of electricity assets when the looming hit to Iemma was too much carnival to ignore. Instead the Special Minister for the Western Suburbs is also manager of a coal mine selling cut price ore to retailers, the crumbling network, and the retailers with all the paying customers. So what if the first Garnault release made mention of the gouging by the power sector in the run up to emission pricing? Who would politically profit with such as disclosure..... through to the keeper.... it is all about 'tax' and 'cost of living pressures' and the carnival.

Mr O'Brien questions the salesperson.... the three major parties in both 2007 and 2010 declared that emissions be capped in 2015 due to their stated belief in human induced climate change. What is the story with that one wonders? Did they or did they not? On offer is the 'tax' or direct action schemes. Instead wedding vows and packages in speedo... the carnival show continues..... shaddup already!

Commenter

Marshall

Date and time

June 15, 2011, 7:52AM

Here we go again:

*Save the grandchildren*Save the Coral*Save the Polar bears

What we should be reading is:*Save us from the Greens & the ABC

Commenter

SuperTrump

Location

Sydney

Date and time

June 15, 2011, 8:04AM

Absolutely Kerry, and we should be helping future generations by building renewable energy systems rather than stealing resources they could use in the future in a hopefully more efficient manner let alone making the world a healthier place.

Commenter

simonj

Location

fawkner

Date and time

June 15, 2011, 8:06AM

Kerry,

Your argument is exectly the reason that the government can't get it's message through. What moral authority does a wealth distribution scheme have. It is yet to be shown how it will mitigate climate change. The details are so poor that there is no conviction and therefore no moral basis to push the point.

Climate change is a serious issue and with a little research you can find there are people out there with serious solutions. This is not one of them. I agree that something has to be done but making up policy on the run and demanding everyone accept it on faith without detail demeans the issue and the people.

When a policy has no evidence it will combat climate change, reditrubute wealth for no environmental gain and it is based on a political lie, it's impossible to mount any moral argument, let alone a strong one.

Commenter

Ben

Location

Sydney

Date and time

June 15, 2011, 8:08AM

Around the world there are 1,000 policies / pieces of legislation in place to reduce carbon emissions.

While one of Australia's major parties is led by outright deniers who have 90 per cent of the country's media onside.

Our democracy and progress are being subverted by absolute crap.

We'll all pay the price eventually.

Commenter

Douglas

Date and time

June 15, 2011, 8:23AM

There isn't a tax rate or threshold in the world that a government couldn't change at a future date. And breaking promises could hardly be discribed as a unique experience for this particular Labor government, so is it any wonder that the public is suspicious.

Commenter

SteveH.

Date and time

June 15, 2011, 8:23AM

"Yet, the public understand that the carbon tax is designed to make carbon more expensive."

* At surface temperatures and pressures, Graphite is the stable form of carbon.* Graphite is a polymorph of the element carbon. Diamond is another polymorph.

So pencils and diamonds will be more expensive.That will 'tackle' climate change. Stop it dead in it's tracks, to be sure.

The author could write a thesis on political deception if only he understood basic science 101.Back to high school for you, Mr O'Brien.

Commenter

handjive

Date and time

June 15, 2011, 8:30AM

Most Australians would agree that we need to take action on reducing pollution and maintaining more sustainable use of our resources. The government fails because its economic reasons fall flat because it is patently obvious that a tax without meaningful legislation will produce nothing, and to take with one hand and give back with the other is transparent to everyone as blatant pork barrelling. If the Gillard government taxes carbon, gives half the money back to industry, and the other half to low income earners, whats left over, and is it going to be spent meaningfully instead of being given to climate change supporting, grant sponging scientists to help bolster the riduculous claims to whatever the current spin is, (warming, hang on, cooling, maybe, drought, no, torrential rain, sea levels increasing to cover the planet, no, random weather events - bingo "weather will happen"). All the cost of living prices increase ( industry will actually make money on this, its not an incentive to change, and no legislation to force them). The Gillard government have no policy, a half baked tax that achieves less than nothing and no indication that this is going to change. With Julias popularity in the gutter, how long before the next ALP knife fight?

Commenter

Meh

Location

Sydney

Date and time

June 15, 2011, 8:36AM

All fair comment Kerry. On a related subject, I await with interest the abuse that Senator Barnaby Joyce and other henchpeople in the non-Liberal and anti-National parties will heap on the revered and aged Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, now that she has co-signed a letter to this publication which, in part, reads "A price on carbon is fundamental to substantially reducing emissions and driving the development and growth of a low-carbon economy". Surely if it's good enough to attack the actress Cate Blanchett on the basis that she is using her supposed celebrity status to comment on these matters, Senator Joyce, Mr Abbott and others will have no option but to likewise attack the good Dame, even if she does happen to be Rupert Murdoch's mum.

Commenter

Jeff

Date and time

June 15, 2011, 8:37AM

Trying to convince many people that there are more important things in life than the economy is like trying to explain the dangers of drink to an alcoholic in a bar. In brief moments of clarity they may grasp the concept you're trying to communicate, but for the most part they will deny they have a problem ("I'm not addicted"/"climate change isn't real"), get angry ("You can't tell me what to do!"), threaten anyone who dares to disagree with them (see threats made against climate scientists recently) and order another round.